The Gnostic Book of Changes 11

NOTE: The observant reader will perceive that concepts originally

developed in this chapter have been cut and pasted into some of my
subsequent work, notably Psychedelic Shamanism and The
Cracking Tower. As it became unlikely over time that the present
document would ever see print, I shamelessly mined its material for
more publishable venues. I beg the reader’s indulgence for this. The
data are complex, closely argued, and easily bear repetition.

CHAPTER TWO
THE DIMENSIONAL NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
As wide as is this space [around us], so wide is this space within the
heart. In it both sky and earth are concentrated, both fire and wind, both
sun and moon, lightning and the stars, what a man possesses here on
earth and what he does not possess: everything is concentrated in this
[tiny space within the heart].
Chandogya Upanishad, 8.1.5.

This much we know for sure:

1. We are born in a physical body which experiences a spacetime
dimension of reality on a planet which orbits a star in a multiverse of other stars.
2. We live for an indeterminate number of revolutions of this planet
around our sun, but seldom more than a hundred.
3. We die. That is, our body permanently loses consciousness and is re-
absorbed into the basic compounds and elements which comprise the planet.
We're born, we live, and then we die. Nobody can argue with that: We are
temporary creatures in this spacetime dimension.
We have no memory of consciousness before our birth. The events which
occurred previous to our awareness here are known to us as "history." Like the
newspaper version of events in the present, history is an uncertain image of what
may have happened in the past, and the events of the future are even more
nebulous.
All that we can know empirically takes place in the present -- a present in
which consciousness is periodically interrupted by sleep. During these dormant
cycles, our awareness is eclipsed by a darkness which is occasionally punctuated
with dreams wherein ambiguous images act out enigmatic dramas. For the most
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 12

part we ignore these cerebral events. Some people claim no memory of them at
all, and in most quarters it is considered a measure of one's grasp of reality to
ignore dreams and remain focused on practical matters: the getting of a living
and the engagement with what will tomorrow be called history, but today is called
"real life."
Thus it is that the temporary and intermittent consciousness of a physical
spacetime dimension is generally considered the standard for what is real, and
the dark and nebulous, night-time awareness of a dimension akin to eternity is
deemed illusory and unreal. And since human life in spacetime is both uncertain
and ephemeral, it is a common cultural assumption that the consciousness which
animates the human body is equally temporary: We are impermanent, even
incidental creatures, and that's all there is to it.
If there were no such things as dreams and other autonomous emanations
from the unconscious psyche, this view would be justifiable. But the fact is that
the materialistic conception of reality which still dominates Western thought can
only be sustained by ignoring the night-time half of our awareness. To claim that
the day is real, but the night is not is simply incorrect.
It may well be said that the contemporary cultural consciousness has not
yet absorbed into its general philosophy the idea of the unconscious and
all that it means, despite the fact that modern man has been confronted
with this idea for more than half a century. The assimilation of the
fundamental insight that psychic life has two poles still remains a task
for the future. (1)
Jung -- Memories, Dreams, Reflections

Psychic life, which is to say human life, has two poles: the conscious and
the unconscious. By conscious is meant the subjective experience of being in a
body which is aware of both an external world of objects and an internal world of
thoughts, feelings and drives. By unconscious is meant the subjective experience
of unwilled autonomous thoughts, feelings and drives which emanate from
"somewhere" within our awareness. These latter usually take the form of dreams,
hypnogogic imagery and unwilled affects or emotions. In the symbolism of the
psyche, consciousness is associated with light, and the unconscious is associated
with darkness.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 13

These daytime and nighttime realms of awareness are commonly

experienced as a continuously shifting continuum ranging from alert wakefulness
to deep dreamless sleep. Hence, it may be logically inferred that the two realms
are one, though we usually experience them as separate. (The continuum "in
itself" is a whole, though we perceive it as many different states of being -- from
outer to inner and back again.)
It must be emphasized that both conscious and unconscious awareness is
subjective. Each of us perceives our apparently common world from the unique
point of view of a separate, individual personality. This is because we live in a
multiverse, not a universe. (Logically speaking, only the universe itself is capable
of perceiving itself as One.) From the standpoint of everyday awareness, the
concept of a universe is an abstraction -- we can imagine it as One, but we
experience it as many. (For the moment I am ignoring the experience of the
mystic, which is precisely the shifting of awareness from the many to the One.
The overwhelming mass of humanity is still dealing with multiplicity.)
Hence, each differentiated, self-conscious entity by definition perceives
subjectively: From the scientist who devotes his life to the pursuit of "objective"
truth, to the most irrational hysteric, we cannot avoid the fact that each of us is a
separate, individual, subjective observer of a multiverse. And let us not forget
that this multiverse is both inner and outer, since those who pay close attention
to the events in their unconscious soon discover a "beyond within" at least as
infinite as the outer realm of stars and galaxies.
This is not to claim that there is no objective universe, only that all non-
mystical experience of it is of a multiverse. To that extent, there are as many
multiverses as there are observers. The universe itself may be thought of as the
sum total of all subjective experiences of it, plus what it is "in itself."
"Objectivity" then is only a relative standard of perception -- an utterly
essential and invaluable concept, but ultimately incapable of realization via
ordinary rational processes. True objectivity (the mystical state of
consciousness), since it is One, by definition transcends all categories of
differentiation and is hence incapable of being described. It is one of life's
greatest ironies that true objectivity may only be experienced subjectively!
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 14

Human perception then, is identical with subjective awareness which is

divided into two distinct realms of "that which is perceived": an internal realm
(the mind, both conscious and unconscious), and an external realm (the physical
multiverse, also called spacetime). This is the ground of what it is "to be," and all
metaphysics, all psychology, must begin from this point.
Metaphysics, literally the study of that which lies "beyond the physical,"
can semantically only refer to realms of consciousness. That which cannot be
identified with the exterior multiverse (the matter-energy continuum) belongs to
the realm of awareness -- perhaps not always exactly the "unconscious" per se,
but certainly including the interior multiverse we have so labelled. Metaphysics
is that branch of philosophy which deals with ultimate questions of reality.
(Obviously, in order to know how to live properly one should have a concept of
what, if anything, life is all about.) Unfortunately, the realm of metaphysics lies
beyond the relative objectivity of the scientific method, therefore the possibilities
of erroneous perception are amplified enormously.
Psychology is the study of the human psyche. Because it deals with
ineffable inner states, it is also largely immune to scientific method, and hence
vulnerable to error. If only there were some way of finding universal patterns in
the psyche and of correlating these patterns with the aims of metaphysics, we
would have a plausible standard by which to live properly -- which is to say: to
make valid choices in our lives.
The great Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung devoted his life to the exploration
and study of the unconscious realms of the deep psyche and their interface with
the questions of metaphysics. One of his main contributions to the field was his
differentiation of our often unruly inner images into comprehensible categories.
Jung re-defined the human psychic template on the basis of empirical scientific
observation: rather than the gods and demons of a complicated theology, he
differentiated no less wonderful inner drives, complexes and archetypal forces
which comprise the raw hidden energies informing our choices. Those who are
interested in tracing his line of reasoning will find that Jung's description of the
psyche is a modern paraphrase of the ancient Gnostic conception of the
multiverse.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 15

In a television interview held shortly before he died, Jung was asked if he

believed in God. "I don't believe...", he began, and then after a dramatically long
pause continued: "...I know." This is the unmistakable statement of a Gnostic --
one who "knows." Gnosticism is "knowing" as opposed to "believing" -- a
distinction described in the Taoist proverb: "He who knows does not speak. He
who speaks does not know."Knowing in this sense can only be experienced, and it
cannot be communicated except indirectly via symbolism. Perhaps the proverb
could be more succinctly stated as: "Believers speak, knowers can only point." A
full and true gnosis then, is the subjective experience of objectivity -- that
attainment of Oneness which is beyond description because description is
differentiation, and differentiation is, by definition, not Oneness.
Analytical (Jungian) Psychology is a gnostic system, as is the Kabbalah,
the mystical branch of Judaism. There are many such systems -- among which
are Tibetan Buddhism and the psychic world-view of "Seth," the discarnate
personality who spoke through the late trance medium, Jane Roberts. Gnostic
symbolism, no matter where it comes from, is amazingly consistent and suggests
a core gestalt or operating template within the unconscious psyche. Recent
research into the functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain support
a gnostic view of the personality, as does evidence now emerging from the study
of Multiple Personality Disorder. These and other findings provide a new
doorway into the study of the unconscious.
Briefly, crudely, and from the author's necessarily subjective synthesis, the
gnostic model of the cosmos is something like the following:
1. Differentiated existence (the multiverse) was created when a Divine
Unity emanated from itself paired opposites called "syzygies," which are mated
male and female powers.
2. From the symbolic intercourse of these paired opposites was born a
vast multiverse of worlds and dimensions: both what we call "physical" worlds as
well as worlds of matter so subtle that we would label them thought, emotion or
intuition. This multiverse is called by gnostics the "Pleroma," which means
"fullness" in Greek. It is indeed a fullness, for it constitutes everything that exists
in all possible dimensions of differentiated reality.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 16

3. Powerful hierarchies of intelligent entities evolved to take their niches

in these subtle realms -- much in the way we inhabit our physical dimension.
Because of the limitless differentiation within the Pleroma, these intelligences of
necessity express all possible nuances of being and meaning: from gods and
angels to daemons and devils; from the personalities of starfish to the patterns
within the genetic code.
4. Our spacetime world was created by more or less inferior "inner"
powers -- not by the supreme Godhead, which is a seamless unity, but by lesser
intelligences who use our world for the purpose of experiencing a physical
dimension through the human body and psyche.
5. Human beings are essentially the slaves and puppets of these entities.
The gnostics called them "archons," which is the Greek word for "authority," or
"ruler." Because the human psyche is a microcosm of the multiverse, each of us is
a composite being -- not a unity, but a multiplicity. It is only our illusion of unity
which enables the archons to rule our lives, and we experience their rule in the
form of thoughts, emotions, drives and instincts.
6. The gnostics assert that Yahweh, the god of Judaism and Christianity
(and by extension any differentiated deity) is not the supreme Godhead: any
deity with a distinct personality cannot be identical with the Godhead because the
latter is a unity which transcends all characterization.
7. "God" (with a capital "G"), for the gnostic is not a being, but a state of
being. One either experiences this ineffable state of consciousness, or
experiences a state of separation from it. It follows that to defer to the lesser
archonic powers is to ensure one's continued bondage to a differentiated
existence in the Pleroma.
8. The gnostic, realizing this situation, seeks to transcend the Pleroma, the
multiverse, and attain a state of Oneness in the Godhead, the universe as it is "in
itself." Since gnosticism postulates re-incarnation as one of its main tenets, to be
united with the Godhead meant that any individual soul who could accomplish
this was freed from re- birth in the multiverse.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 17

We will now briefly look at Jung's conception of the psyche and see why it
is considered a gnostic system. (For the purposes of this chapter I will try to
confine myself to the Jungian version of gnostic terminology as much as possible
because it reflects the scientific expectations of our era.)
Jung differentiated three main foci within the greater psyche: the ego, the
archetypal complexes, and the Self. It is absolutely essential that the reader
understands these distinctions, as the proper comprehension of this
interpretation of the psyche is utterly dependent upon them.
THE EGO COMPLEX
The ego is the complex of conscious awareness of a physical spacetime
dimension. You are almost certainly focused in your ego mode of perception as
you read these words. (We will discuss the role of the ego in more detail later.)
THE ARCHETYPAL COMPLEXES
The archetypal complexes are not as easily comprehended -- Jung
identified them with the instincts, but also implied that they were something
more. If one carefully monitors the feelings, emotions, appetites and drives
which spontaneously emerge into awareness from the psyche, but refuses to act
on them or identify with them, one soon begins to realize that these forces behave
exactly like autonomous entities. That is, they behave like others. This is a subtle
as well as disturbing distinction to make, because we are used to seeing ourselves
as unified, rather than composite beings.
The so-called unity of consciousness is an illusion. It is really a wish-
dream. We like to think that we are one; but we are not, most decidedly
not. We are not really masters in our house. We like to believe in our
will-power and in our energy and in what we can do; but when it comes
to a real show-down we find that we can do it only to a certain extent,
because we are hampered by those little devils the complexes.
Complexes are autonomous groups of associations that have a tendency
to move by themselves, and to live their life apart from our intentions. I
hold that the personal unconscious, as well as the collective unconscious,
consists of an indefinite, because unknown, number of complexes or
fragmentary personalities. (2)
Jung -- Analytical Psychology -- its Theory and Practice

This is to most people a truly fantastic idea which is usually rejected out of
hand if it is even considered at all, yet recent research supports the concept. The
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 18

phenomenon of Multiple Personality Disorder has received considerable study in

the past few decades, and contemporary versions of Jung's observations are being
hypothesized to explain its bizarre symptoms. John O. Beahrs, a psychologist
studying Multiple Personality Disorder, postulates the theory of Co-
consciousness:
Co-consciousness (is)...the existence within a single human organism of
more than one consciously experiencing psychological entity, each with
some sense of its own identity or selfhood relatively separate and
discrete from other similar entities, and with separate conscious
experiences occurring simultaneously with one another within this
human organism ...The theory of co- consciousness assumes that each
part of any human individual has some sense of selfhood of its own,
discrete from that of other parts and the Self proper... Co-consciousness
assumes that each part of this "unconscious" must have its own ongoing
conscious experience. There can be no such thing as an unconscious, in
any absolute sense. "Unconscious" can only be relative to one particular
part. (3)
John O. Beahrs -- Unity and Multiplicity

Using the modern terminology of psychology, both Jung and Beahrs are
describing the ancient gnostic concept of "archons" -- those inner rulers who
express themselves through human awareness. One of the very first steps to be
taken in inner work is the differentiation of one's conscious ego from these
archetypal complexes. This is why such work can be so dangerous -- it doesn't
take much imagination to realize that we are dealing with the same forces which
overwhelm and fragment the personalities of psychotics.
The ego-complex -- that component of the psyche which consists of the
conscious awareness of a spacetime dimension -- is but one of an indeterminate
number of other complexes within the greater (unconscious) psyche. Despite its
illusions to the contrary, the ego is not the subject of consciousness, but only one
of many objects.
But, inasmuch as the ego is only the centrum of my field of consciousness,
it is not identical with the totality of the psyche, being merely a complex
among other complexes. Hence I discriminate between the ego and the
Self, since the ego is only the subject of my consciousness, while the Self
is the subject of my totality. (4)
Jung -- Psychological Types
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 19

A helpful metaphor for understanding this idea is seen in the structure of

the solar system in which the sun is the central reality, or Self, and the satellite
planets are its projected complexes. We no longer accept the naive geo-centric
idea that the sun and planets revolve around the earth, yet the equally erroneous
ego-centric model of consciousness still predominates. Doubtless a naive
observer on Mars or Jupiter would see his planet as the axis of the solar system as
well, and it may be legitimately hypothesized that each autonomous complex
dwelling in the unconscious psyche (Pleroma) has a point of view not
fundamentally different from this basic illusion. Since they empirically behave
like others, there is no reason to assume that the archetypal complexes (archons)
are not as separate in their dimension of the psyche as we are in ours.
Such a fantastic idea contradicts all common sense, contradicts the
persistent illusion that each of us is a unified being. What sort of hypothesis
could reconcile these observations with our everyday experience?
We are logically obliged to start from where and what we are: subjective
observers. Therefore we must begin with consciousness itself. We know that our
brain and senses are activated by the autonomous energy of awareness. A human
corpse has a brain and organs of sense, but no consciousness. The materialist
states that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the organs through which it is
manifested, but there is evidence to suggest that this is just backwards: what if
consciousness were an a priori fact, and the organs of consciousness (the body
and its network of senses) were merely a spacetime vehicle for the manifestation
of essentially multi-dimensional sources of energy?
Are thoughts and ideas created out of something? Thoughts surely exist,
and perhaps all thoughts need a brain, but the brain is the mode of
realization of the thoughts, not their cause. Brains alone do not create
thoughts any more than computers create calculations. Thoughts can be
created by other thoughts, but that still leaves the origin of thoughts
unexplained. Sensations lead to some thoughts; memory also produces
thoughts. Most artists, however, would regard their work as a result of
spontaneous inspiration. If this is so, creating a painting -- or at least
the idea of a painting -- is a form of creation out of nothing. (5)
P. Davies -- Superforce

Note the following empirical facts:

 The Gnostic Book of Changes 20

1. Consciousness is autonomous -- one cannot shut it off. Even during

sleep, images continue to emerge from the psyche. Try to go for even a few
seconds without any thought in your head -- it can't be done except through
incredible discipline, and even then for only limited periods of time. The Zen
master has gained some control of his consciousness, but he hasn't stopped it.
Consciousness flows like a continuous wellspring from within.
2. Consciousness is aware of an outer and an inner reality. "Outside" is
what we call spacetime, a state in which perception soars upward from the
seemingly solid earth to an ever-increasing infinity of stars and galaxies on one
hand, and downward into a realm of subatomic particles which eventually
disappear into mathematical abstractions on the other. "Inside" is a continuum
sinking from full awareness into a domain of fantastic dreams and yet another
infinity of darkness beyond. Like the Roman god Janus, the god of portals and
gateways who sees in two directions at once, our ego perception is located on the
threshold separating these inner and outer realms.
3. Spacetime consists of three spatial dimensions, plus time. Again note
that consciousness is the point in the middle which makes these distinctions -- all
directions are determined from the subjective observer's point of awareness.
Each entity is the center of its frame of reference, its consciousness. Now
consider one definition of time:
Time is conceived as a line along which a point travels from the past
toward the future. That point is the present moment. Being a point, it is
necessarily infinitely short. Clearly the physicist's time has no
experiential reality. An infinitely short time cannot be experienced.
Since the present is all that exists, the past having gone and the future
not yet being here, such a concept of time is inadequate even for the
description of inanimate reality. But it is the best of which we are
capable. (6)
M. Clynes -- Sentics -- the Touch of the Emotions

If the present, if NOW, is an infinitely short point, what determines this

NOW but consciousness, and how may consciousness be distinguished from time
itself? Time and consciousness seem to be virtually inseparable:
...Time (is) bound up in consciousness. Man experiences time, can detect
all time's endless changes and yet can he ever be sure it exists of its own
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 21

right, out there, independent of him? Scientists as well as philosophers

are concerned with such questions and indeed the objectivity of time and
its separation from consciousness is perhaps one of the central issues in
trying to understand time from a scientific viewpoint. (7)
Michael Shallis -- On Time

Since we cannot step outside of our awareness to see if time exists

independently of its observation by consciousness, differentiation between the
two becomes essentially meaningless. Time, therefore -- that infinitely flowing,
infinitely short point we call "NOW" -- seems to exist at the subjective center
from which we perceive the three dimensions of space.
What may be inferred here is another dimension -- surely if time can be
considered a "dimension" which upon reflection is logically inseparable from our
own awareness, then the implication is that consciousness itself could also be a
dimension. And the "infinitely short point" could be seen as a wellspring of
autonomously flowing energy emanating from this other dimension -- a
continuous explosion from within: a kind of psychic Big Bang that creates and
sustains each individual's multiverse of awareness. (This is a mirror of the
macrocosmic Big Bang, which is still in progress, since all the objects in space are
still moving away from each other at mind-boggling rates of speed.)
The quantum physicists now postulate an eleven-dimensional multiverse
(Davies, 1985), and say that the seven "extra" dimensions are in some strange
way "rolled up" inside of our familiar spacetime four. This seems both inelegant
and arbitrary because it discounts our own outer and inner experience. If the
hypothesis of consciousness-as-dimension is correct, it would explain the
universal claim of mystics that a whole panoply of worlds exists within the
psyche. ("The Kingdom of Heaven is within you," etc.) It would explain dreams
as symbolic images of these inner dimensions, and explain the near-death
phenomenon of entering a dimension of light and intelligence (Moody, 1976).
Death then, might be something like an implosion, an inward withdrawal of
consciousness from a physical body into another dimension, or many dimensions
-- as many as eleven, perhaps: or even more.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 22

Jung's investigations into the nature of the psyche led him to postulate the
concept of "synchronicity," or meaningful coincidence -- a phenomenon which
seems to contradict materialist notions about cause and effect. For example, how
can oracle responses, such as emanate from the I Ching, consistently reflect
meanings which are psychically relevant to the question asked? How can dreams
predict the future? (A relatively common experience.) Logically, to transcend
time is to leave one dimension, the temporal, and enter another; and if a portion
of our psyche, such as the "dream-maker," can do this, then what does this tell us
about the nature of the psyche and of other dimensions? Jung says:
The “absolute knowledge” which is characteristic of synchronistic
phenomena, a knowledge not mediated by the sense organs, supports the
hypothesis of a self- subsistent meaning, or even expresses its existence.
Such a form of existence can only be transcendental, since, as the
knowledge of future or spatially distant events shows, it is contained in a
psychically relative space and time, that is to say in an irrepresentable
space-time continuum. (8)
Jung -- Synchronicity

Jung explores two ideas here: teleology ("the hypothesis of a self-

subsistent meaning"), and the logical necessity to postulate dimensions beyond
spacetime to account for synchronistic phenomena. "Psychically relative space
and time" suggests consciousness in relation to higher dimensions; and "an
irrepresentable space-time continuum" refers to the seeming impossibility of
describing dimensions beyond spacetime.
The essence of our perception of the multiverse is that we perceive it both
from within the multiverse itself and from within our own subjective awareness
inside of a physical body. Some concept of dimension is therefore essential to our
understanding. Closer examination of our own awareness (dreams, altered
states, etc.) suggests that there is an interior multiverse seemingly as infinite as
the exterior. Part of this interior multiverse consists of a "consciousness at large"
(Jung's collective unconscious), which is focused in dimensions contiguous to
this one. We are the denizens of a three dimensionsal "cube" (the "cube of space"
of the kabbalists) which is but one facet of a hyper-cube transcending three
dimensions. Because various methods of consciousness alteration give us access
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 23

to the experience of this "hyper-cube" it follows that consciousness at the very

least must be an interface between spacetime and these other dimensions.
If our consciousness can detect phenomena which transcend three
dimensions, then there must be more than three dimensions, and consciousness
must in some way be connected to them. (If it wasn't they would be unperceived
and unknowable.) It follows that if all dimensions are integral, then what
happens in any one of them must affect the whole, and a careful observer at any
point within the system (i.e., in any dimension) should perceive hidden
consistencies (such as synchronicity) which could be interpreted as "purposive,"
or teleological. Because of the difficulties in conceptualizing the higher
dimensions, philosophers often approach them by reasoning from analogy:
The key idea is to reason by analogy. The fourth dimension is to three-
dimensional space as the third dimension is to two-dimensional space.
(9)
R. Rucker -- The Fourth Dimension

Jung's observations plus analogical reasoning suggest a hypothesis of

consciousness as "perpendicular" to spacetime, and therefore emanating from
other dimensions. The word perpendicular refers to a line or plane at right
angles to another line or plane. Thus, we say that a square plane is perpendicular
to a straight line and that a cube is in turn perpendicular to a square plane. What
is perpendicular to a cube? This is impossible for me to visualize externally,
because I am subjectively perceiving from three-dimensional space. It is easy for
me to perceive a point, line and plane "objectively;" indeed, any child can readily
comprehend dimensions below three, but even mystics get confused when trying
to describe four-dimensional space. I thus use the term "perpendicular" in a
special sense here to convey the idea of being at any angle or direction that
transcends the boundaries of a dimension. (The idea of "right angles" is not
necessarily relevant to the concept except as an aid to visualization.) Jung's use
of the word "transcendental" would in the quotation above mean "extra-
dimensional," and fall within my special definition of "perpendicular."
One key to understanding these ideas is to approach them in terms of the
difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Since we cannot be objective
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 24

except in a relative sense, "objectivity" must be a function of the imagination. I

can imagine what objectivity is, but I cannot be objective. To see the universe as
universe one would have to be outside of it. To be able to see three dimensions
objectively, one would have to perceive them from the fourth spatial dimension.
For a human being, dimensions of three and less are external; dimensions higher
than three are internal. The only way one can perceive four spatial dimensions is
subjectively because the only "perpendicular" direction away from three
dimensions for a three-dimensional entity to go is inside. Hence, for a three-
dimensional entity all spatial dimensions higher than three would have to be
mental or psychic. A four-dimensional being would be experienced by a three-
dimensional being as an inner voice or hallucination: as an interior phenomenon.
Pause for a moment and try to imagine four-dimensional space. It is
right next to you, but in a direction you can't point to. No matter how
well hidden you may be, a four-dimensional creature can see you
perfectly well, inside and outside. (10)
R. Rucker -- The Fourth Dimension

It is highly plausible that the only four-dimensional entities that human

beings encounter come from within. The literature of mysticism is replete with
descriptions of altered states of consciousness which deal with the perception of
other dimensions. For the most part, these are the descriptions of naive
observers. We could go on indefinitely with examples taken from mythology,
religion and mystical philosophy, but shall confine ourselves to the primary error
which has blocked our comprehension of what the mystics were trying to tell us:
the naive use of the word "Heaven" to describe what is essentially an internal
dimension. Semantically, "Heaven" means "above." Our inability to conceive or
visualize more than three spatial dimensions confines our description of what is
essentially indescribable anyway to three-dimensional concepts. How else could
an unsophisticated observer describe it? Heaven in this conception isn't above,
it is within -- and it isn't all "Heaven" (in the sense of harmonic goodness) either:
this is the Pleroma of the gnostics, Jung's Collective Unconscious, and it
encompasses all modes of consciousness, from archangels to demons.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 25

A correlate of this error of confusing inner with outer realities is the basic
illusion of "objectivity." To conceive of the three spatial dimensions as "out
there" is to set the observer aside and ignore the primary fact of perception itself
as the foundation upon which all observations are made. Perception comes first,
then the three spatial dimensions are seen to radiate from it. That one can
observe three dimensions without putting the observer in the center (i.e., I can
observe the three dimensions of a house without being inside of the house)
confuses the issue, but does not negate the fundamental truth that I am always at
the center of the spacetime surrounding me.
The fact that each individual observer is the center of his/her world
implies a universal dimension from which separate consciousnesses are
emanated into spacetime. This lends credence to Jung's concept of the Objective
Psyche, the so-called Collective Unconscious. Again, we are talking about the
Pleroma -- the domain of the gnostic archons: Jung's archetypal complexes.
These personified entities operate from their differentiated realms to not only
affect our behavior, but to actually comprise the energy which animates us. The
concept is not a new one:
Marduk laid a reed on the face of the waters, He formed dust and poured
it out beside the reed; That he might cause the gods to dwell in the
dwelling of their hearts' desire, He formed mankind. (11)
Sumerian Tablet, 6th Century B.C.E.

Such ideas seem fantastic to the point of absurdity, yet no more so than
the observations of modern physics in which subatomic particles actually emerge
from nothingness, exist for an infinitesimal fraction of time, then disappear into
nothingness again. Semantically, such an event is nonsense, yet it is an observed
fact which transcends the capacity of language to differentiate meaningfully.
Symbolism within the Western Mystery Tradition, the heritage of gnostic
thought, describes a reality in conformance with the above hypothesis. For
example, the so- called "Cube of Space" is a kabbalistic diagram which assigns
each of the major arcana of the Tarot deck to a position on or within a
transparent cube -- the quintessential figure of three-dimensional reality. Each
Tarot arcanum, of course, symbolizes an archetypal force within the Pleroma.
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 26

The image we are concerned with here is the Universe or World card, which is
placed at the exact center of the cube. This card is portrayed in most decks as an
androgynous figure emerging from an oval. This vaginal-shaped oval is called a
"mandorla," and it symbolizes the doorway between Heaven and Earth. (The
Virgin of Guadeloupe of Catholicism is also centered within such a figure.) This
symbolically suggests the idea of emanation from within -- everyone who was not
born by Cesarian Section entered spacetime as a separated and differentiated
being through such a "doorway." There are many significant symbolic
associations with this arcanum, but the only one we are concerned with here is
the concept of consciousness emerging from an inner center -- from a Pleroma
inhabited by hidden forces.
Tibetan Buddhism also describes a Pleroma inhabited by archetypal
complexes or archons. In the terminology of the Bardo Thodol, or Tibetan
Book of the Dead, these are the "Peaceful and Wrathful Deities" (angels and
devils) which are encountered by the ego after the death of the physical body.
Note that these archonic powers are specifically related to one's personal ideation
and describe the human heart with the same symbolism as the Cube of Space:
These forty-two deities of the sambhogakaya will emerge from within
your heart and appear before you; they are the pure form of your
projections, so recognize them. Oh son of noble family, those realms too
do not exist anywhere else, but lie in the four directions of your heart
with the center as fifth, and now they emerge from within your heart and
appear before you. Those images too do not come from anywhere else,
but are the primordial spontaneous play of your mind, so recognize
them in this way. (Emphasis mine) (12)
Bardo Thodol -- Freemantle/Trungpa translation

Thus we see again that the unconscious psyche, the Pleroma, is associated
with autonomous, differentiated entities which are identical with our mental
processes, and that the focal point of consciousness is conceived as a center of
emanation from an interior multiverse. (The Sambhogakaya of Buddhism is
conceptually the same as the gnostic Pleroma.)
The literature of schizophrenia and that of mysticism (e.g., Swedenborg)
describe the same inner reality from two points of view -- one is fragmented, the
other unified. The difference between them is that the mystic is able to maintain
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 27

a focus within the observing ego-complex, whereas the shizophrenic's ego-

complex has been shattered beyond the ability to focus.
The ego functioning of the schizophrenic has at least three cardinal
features. 1. a vulnerability to disorganization of executive functions of
the ego; 2. a relative lack of autonomy from internal drives and external
stimuli; 3. an inability to maintain a reliable and enduring concept of
reality. These overlap and interrelate. (13)
R.W. Gibson, MD, et. al. -- The Ego Defect in Schizophrenia

This implies that the healthy ego-complex is the choice- maker in this
dimension -- it ideally can choose which of the energies clamoring for attention
within the psyche will be allowed expression in spacetime. The ego-complex is
actually little more than a focal point within a physical body which acts as a
switching mechanism -- it presumably has little energy of "its own" but does have
the freedom to allocate an incredible reservoir of power according to its own
choices.
If the ego is only a choice-maker, upon what value does it base its
decisions? Most individuals "choose" their experience on the basis of a complex
gratification of archetypal appetites and urges -- that is, their decisions usually
originate from other complexes within the psyche. Because it identifies with the
physical body which it is inhabiting, the ego-complex has the illusion that it is
gratifying its own urges, rather than that other complexes plugged into the
separate and individual senses are using the body for the gratification of their
need to come into contact with the objects of sense. This is how the archons keep
us enslaved to their will.
Normal ego-awareness is usually too solidly focused in spacetime to
perceive its affects as "others," but where the ego has broken down, as in
Schizophrenia or Multiple Personality Disorder, the "archons" are clearly evoked:

Audible thoughts; voices heard arguing; voices heard commenting on

one's actions; the experience of influences playing on the body (somatic
passivity experiences); thought-withdrawal and other interferences with
thought; diffusion of thought; delusional perception and all feelings,
impulses (drives), and volitional acts that are experienced by the patient
as the work or influence of others. When any of these modes of
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 28

experience is undeniably present and no basic somatic illness can be

found, we may make the decisive clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia. (14)
K. Schneider -- Clinical Psychopathology

It is a subtle lesson indeed to perceive that the ego is usually just going
along for the ride, rather than steering the vehicle. In truth, it is only when the
ego consciously steers the vehicle that it is fulfilling its proper function in the
psyche. To the extent that satellite complexes within a composite entity express
their energy without reference to the nucleus, the entity is fragmented and
incoherent. Schizophrenia and Multiple Personality Disorder are just exaggerated
and extreme forms of what a deluded ego calls "normal" consciousness.
Most mental experience is participated in by spirits who don't know
themselves as anything other than your own feelings. Honed down to
this fine level, the only thing left that is really yours is the struggle to
choose. Those who aren't choosing are going the way the spiritual winds
blow. So the pitiful picture of the hallucinated psychotic is really an
exaggerated picture of everyone's situation. (15)
W. Van Dusen -- The Presence of Other Worlds

If the ego is only one of many objects of consciousness, and not its subject,
the crucial and obvious question is: where and what is the source of
consciousness? Where and what is the sun to which the ego is but one of many
satellites? Indeed, the entire goal of inner work is for the ego to contact this
energy, to comprehend it to the best of its ability, and ultimately to willingly
assume the role of servant to the will of this source. The ego is ideally the
overseer or foreman of the psyche, who allocates the energy of the archetypal
complexes under the direction of the psychic nucleus. Jung calls this nucleus the
Self.
THE SELF
The Self, like the archetypal complexes, is not easily differentiated within
the psyche. It sometimes takes a fair amount of effort to discern this entity.
Often the most common realization comes through a dream. Anyone who has
ever experienced the numinous power of a fully comprehended dream has
probably experienced the Self. What creative force within my unconscious mind
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 29

is capable of presenting me with information that far transcends my conscious

awareness? Who is the dream-maker?
Because the ego's first experience of the Self is usually so powerfully
shattering, it is often interpreted as a contact with "God." Jung recognized this
phenomenon, and stated that the Self corresponds to a "god-image" in the
psyche. That is to say, the image of God or a god-like entity, such as Christ, is a
spacetime symbol which fits the inner template of the Self within each individual.
The naive observer usually assigns a known correlation to explain an unknown
phenomenon: "I just had a profound inner experience -- it must have come from
God (Jesus, Mohammed, etc.)"
Jung was an empiricist, and refused to speculate beyond his observed
data. He repeated many times that he had no idea at all of who or what "God" is
other than a universal symbolic representation of the Self which is latent within
every human psyche. Although we must respect the scientific foundation of
Jung's empiricism, it leaves some very crucial questions unanswered. The
Kabbalah, as a religious- philosophical system, is able to take the step that Jung
would not allow himself to make publicly.
Briefly, and rather crudely, the conception is this: the Self is the evolving
entity within the psyche. As the sun is to its solar system (which it created), the
Self is to its satellite complexes. Each complex (including the ego complex) exists
within its own dimension of awareness. The ego-complex observes the greater
psyche from the relative and subjective position of a spacetime dimension -- just
as the earth is a uniquely differentiated point of observation in relation to the rest
of the solar system. The ego experiences the Self and the archetypal complexes as
forces within its own consciousness just as it experiences the sun and planets as
forces outside of the physical body. Once it is able to differentiate these forces
and sort them out it realizes that it plays a very unique and important role in the
overall evolution of the psyche.
The ego is a projection of the Self into a spacetime dimensional body for
the purpose of gaining experience. At physical death, the ego is released from
this vehicle and its essence is somehow re-absorbed by the Self. In the course of
its long evolution the Self will emanate an indeterminate number of egos into
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 30

spacetime. The objective of these emanations is to develop awareness through a

full spectrum of experience, and at a certain point to use this awareness to re-
unify the psyche within the vessel of the physical body.
It is essential to realize that the Self is not God -- the Self is a differentiated
archetype (an archon, if you will), far superior to the limited ego, but it does not
represent an ultimate state of consciousness. Before the Self can "ascend" from
its dimension in the Pleroma to unite with the Godhead, it must re-unify all of its
satellites into one cooperatively functioning whole. The ego is absolutely
essential to this process of re-unification.
From the unconscious emerges the ego -- a fruit grown by the Self
specifically for the furtherance of its own evolution. Implicit is the
concept that the Self is not yet perfect, is indeed itself evolving, and
though it possesses powers which the ego can hardly conceive of, it is not
"God" in the sense of a totally perfected being. (16)
E. Neumann -- The Origins and History of Consciousness

Perhaps the most difficult realization of inner work is the acceptance of the
fact that the ego, being a differentiation of the Self, is incapable of attaining a
state of unified awareness "on its own." The persistent illusion of psychic unity
gives the ego the impression that it does the work, and it receives the reward.
Only the Self is capable of directing the Work, and once the Work has begun there
are many battles fought between the two -- battles which the ego, if it remains
true to the process, usually loses. There is little in life more difficult than this,
which explains why so few enlightened beings are encountered in this dimension
of reality. The proper function of the ego is that of choicemaker for the Self --
period.
How does one accomplish this? What "objective" sources of authority are
available which enable the ego to make informed, intelligent choices in its
conduct of the Work?
The I Ching is an empirically valid means of contacting the reality of the
greater, or unconscious, psyche. (Again, "unconscious" means that it is
unconscious to the ego, not that the forces within it are unconscious in their own
dimensions.) "Empirically valid" means simply that the I Ching works. That is,
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 31

anyone who seriously experiments with the oracle will quickly discover a
meaningful correlation between the question posed and the answer received.
The scientific method, the preferred standard of perception for our era, is
predicated upon cause and effect relationships and the "objective" repeatability of
phenomena. ("Objective" here means that the data must conform to the
subjective experience of those who adhere to the rules of the scientific method.)
There is nothing wrong with this -- to recognize the subjectivity of all
differentiated awareness is not to denigrate the relative objectivity of relatively
shared experience. It is essential that we be as rigorous as possible in the way we
choose to observe our existence in spacetime without deluding ourselves that we
can normally perceive objective reality as subjective observers.
The I Ching offers an empirical or subjective experience which cannot be
validated (i.e, repeated) by scientific method. Consequently, it is often
repudiated by those with no experience of it. To claim that it is "unreal" however,
is the same as saying that there is no truth in dreams, that falling in love is
unreal, or that any experience is invalid if it cannot be measured against a
preconceived "objective" standard of acceptability. To observe this is not to imply
that we should defer to every image and impulse within the psyche: that would be
synonymous with psychosis. The proper role of the ego-complex is that of choice-
maker, which means the responsible differentiation and evaluation of experience
according to an existentially unavoidable, subjective point of view.
Nowhere is it implied that this is easy to do.
As a scientist trying to comprehend the depths of the human psyche, Jung
was constantly confronted with these problems:
The experience you had with the I Ching, calling you to order when
trying to tempt it a second time, also happened to me in 1920 when I first
experimented with it. It also gave me a wholesome shock and at the
same time it opened wholly new vistas to me. I well understand that you
prefer to emphasize the archetypal implication in synchronicity. This
aspect is certainly most important from the psychological angle, but I
must say that I am equally interested, at times even more so, in the
metaphysical aspect of the phenomena, and in the question: how does it
come that even inanimate objects are capable of behaving as if they were
acquainted with my thoughts? (17)
Jung -- Letters, January 3, 1957
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 32

Because he refused to speculate beyond his empirical data, Jung was

unwilling to postulate a cause-effect relationship between the questions he posed
to the oracle and the answers he received -- how can throwing three coins six
times create an image which responds to the questions asked? There is no
discernable link between question and answer -- nothing that we would call a
cause and effect relationship, anyway -- and yet there is meaning! Jung's
synchronicity theory is his attempt to get around this problem by hypothesizing a
strange "coincidental" relationship between the unconscious psyche and
spacetime reality. However, for all of the intricacies of reasoning in its
exposition, this is really just the recognition that there are no accidents in the
multiverse: there is only an ignorance of cause. If spacetime is the four-
dimensional reflection of a multi- dimensional reality which includes dimly
perceived realms akin to consciousness, "cause and effect" become a continuum
of relationships which disappears into the Pleroma: "unconscious" to the
perceiving ego perhaps, but not to levels of awareness transcending the
limitations of spacetime. To say that there is no causal relationship between an
answer obtained by a configuration of falling coins and the subjective question in
the mind of the one who throws them is to be unaware of the unbroken
continuum connecting mind with matter.
But perhaps this is in some sense beside the point -- in the privacy of the
above letter, Jung admitted that the metaphysical aspects of the question were
more compelling than his psychological or scientific concerns. Once one makes a
firm conscious connection with the transcendent Self, the mechanics of the
connection become, if not exactly irrelevant, then at least relatively unimportant.
After all, no one really knows what electricity is either, yet we use it every day.
It is the hypothesis of this book that the I Ching oracle (whatever may be
the mechanics of its operation) is a valid means by which the ego and Self may
communicate regarding spacetime choices pertaining to the Work.
FOOTNOTES
1. Jung, C.G. -- Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Vintage, NY, 1963, Pg. 169
 The Gnostic Book of Changes 33

2. Jung, C.G. -- Analytical Psychology, its Theory & Practice, Vintage,

NY, 1970, Pg. 81
3. Beahrs, J. O., Unity and Multiplicity -- Multilevel Consciousness in
Hypnosis, Psychiatric Disorder and Mental Health, Brunner/Mazel,
NY, 1982, Page 182
4. Jung, C.G. -- from Psychological Types, in The Basic Writings of C.G.
Jung, Modern Library, NY, 1959, Pg. 247
5. Davies, Paul, Superforce, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1985, Pg. 199
6. Clynes, M. -- Sentics -- the Touch of the Emotions, Doubleday, NY, 1978,
(Page reference lost)
7. Shallis, M. -- On Time, Schocken, NY, 1982, Pg 14
8. Jung, C.G. -- Synchronicity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1973, Pg 90
9. Rucker, R. -- The Fourth Dimension: Toward a Geometry ofÿ
Higher Reality, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1984, Pg. 8
10. Ibid, Pg. 18
11. Graves, R. & Patai, R. -- Hebrew Myths, Greenwich House, New York, 1983,
Pg. 22.
12. Freemantle, F., & Trungpa, C., The Tibetan Book of the Dead,
Shambhala, Boston, 1975, Pg. 51
13. Gibson,R.W., MD., et. al. -- "The ego defect in schizophrenia," in Usdin, G.L.,
MD., ed., Psychoneurosis & Shizophrenia, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1966,
Pg. 89
14. Schneider, K., Clinical Psychopathology, 5th ed. Grune & Stratton, NY,
1959, Pg. 133-134
15. Van Dusen, W., The Presence of other Worlds, Swedenborg Foundation,
NY, 1981, Pg. 138
16. Neumann, E., The Origins and History of Consciousness, Bollingen
Series XLII, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970 (Page reference lost)
17. Jung, C.G. -- Letters, Vol. 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975,
Pg. 344